Criminal Profiling and Deception Detection PDF

Wrightsman’s: PSYCHOLOGY AND THE LEGAL SYSTEM Ninth Edition Chapter 7 Evaluating Criminal Suspects © 2019 Cengage. All rights reserved. PROFILING O...

Wrightsman’s: PSYCHOLOGY AND THE LEGAL SYSTEM Ninth Edition Chapter 7 Evaluating Criminal Suspects © 2019 Cengage. All rights reserved. PROFILING OF CRIMINAL SUSPECTS (1 of 4) Behavioral scientists and police use criminal profiling to narrow criminal investigations to suspects who possess certain behavioral and personality features that were revealed by the way the crime was committed. One survey (Torres, Boccacini, & Miller, 2006) found that only 10% of the psychologists and psychiatrists surveyed reported any profiling experience, and 25% considered themselves knowledgeable about profiling. © 2019 Cengage. All rights reserved. PROFILING OF CRIMINAL SUSPECTS (2 of 4) A major source of research and development on criminal profiling has been the FBI’s Behavioral Science Unit (the BSU), which has been worked on criminal profiles between the 1970s and 2014. Historically, much of the BSU’s focus was on violent offenders, especially those who committed bizarre or repeated crimes. https://www.fbi.gov/audio-repository/news-podcasts-thi sweek-behavioral-analysis-unit.mp3/view © 2019 Cengage. All rights reserved. PROFILING OF CRIMINAL SUSPECTS (3 of 4) The focus of such work is on describing those who have committed a specific type of offense in order to learn how they select and approach their victims, how they react to their crimes, what demographic or family characteristics they share, and what personality features might predominate among them. https://www.fbi.gov/news/stories/serial-killers-part-2-the -birth-of-behavioral-analysis-in-the-fbi © 2019 Cengage. All rights reserved. CLASSIFYING HOMICIDE OFFENDERS: MASS AND SERIAL MURDERERS (1 of 9) Historically, most homicides have been committed by killers who were well acquainted with their victims, had a personal but rational motive, killed once, and were then arrested. In the past two decades, increased attention has been paid to patterns of homicides involving killers who attack multiple victims, sometimes with irrational or bizarre motives, and who are less likely to be apprehended than in former days because their victims are strangers. © 2019 Cengage. All rights reserved. CLASSIFYING HOMICIDE OFFENDERS: MASS AND SERIAL MURDERERS (2 of 9) Multiple homicide – Defined by Fox and Levin (1998) as “the slaying of four or more victims, simultaneously or sequentially, by one or a few individuals.” Two types of multiple homicides have been identified: mass murders and serial murders. – Mass murders remain relatively rare. – The mass murderer kills four or more victims in one location during a few minutes to several hours. © 2019 Cengage. All rights reserved. CLASSIFYING HOMICIDE OFFENDERS: MASS AND SERIAL MURDERERS (3 of 9) – It is estimated that about two mass murders were committed every month in the United States in the 1990s, resulting in the deaths of 100 victims annually. – Although most mass murderers are not severely mentally ill, they do tend to harbor strong feelings of resentment and are often motivated by revenge against their victims. – In almost 80% of studied mass murders, the assailant was related to or well acquainted with the victims. In many cases, the attack was a carefully planned assault. © 2019 Cengage. All rights reserved. CLASSIFYING HOMICIDE OFFENDERS: MASS AND SERIAL MURDERERS (4 of 9) – The typical assailant is killed at the location of the crime, commits suicide, or surrenders to police. – Spree killers are a special form of mass murderers in which the attacker kills victims at two or more different locations with no “cooling-off’” interval between the murders. The killing constitutes a single event, but it can either last only a short time or go on for a day or more. © 2019 Cengage. All rights reserved. CLASSIFYING HOMICIDE OFFENDERS: MASS AND SERIAL MURDERERS (5 of 9) © 2019 Cengage. All rights reserved. CLASSIFYING HOMICIDE OFFENDERS: MASS AND SERIAL MURDERERS (6 of 9) – Serial murderers kill four or more victims, each on separate occasions. – Serial killers usually select a certain type of victim who fulfills a role in the killer’s fantasies. – There are cooling-off periods between serial murders, which are usually better planned than mass or spree killings. – Serial murderers are difficult to apprehend. © 2019 Cengage. All rights reserved. CLASSIFYING HOMICIDE OFFENDERS: MASS AND SERIAL MURDERERS (7 of 9) Characteristics of serial offenders: – Mostly white males in their early 30s – Typically employed at the time of the offense – Approximately one-third were married – The average offender had an 11th-grade education – Victims of these offenders were most often white females in their early to mid-30s who were strangers to their killers. – More than half of the murders were sexually motivated. © 2019 Cengage. All rights reserved. CLASSIFYING HOMICIDE OFFENDERS: MASS AND SERIAL MURDERERS (8 of 9) – They prefer to kill with “hands-on” methods (e.g., strangulation), rather than with guns, which are the preferred weapons for mass murderers. – They often keep souvenirs (sometimes in the form of body parts from victims) to commemorate their savage attacks. – Serial killers are not typically psychotic. Most, however, have personality disorders and lack the ability to experience empathy and remorse. – Serial killers often revel in the publicity that their crimes receive. © 2019 Cengage. All rights reserved. CLASSIFYING HOMICIDE OFFENDERS: MASS AND SERIAL MURDERERS (9 of 9) Fox and Levin (2005) have provided examples of different motivations for serial and mass murder: – power – revenge – loyalty – profit – terror © 2019 Cengage. All rights reserved. Michael Swango-Serial Murder © 2019 Cengage. All rights reserved.  Mary Ellen O Toole Criminal Profiler https://www.smithsonianchannel.com/videos/this-intervi ew-strategy-led-a-serial-killer-to-confess/20584 © 2019 Cengage. All rights reserved. Gary Ridgeway-Green River Killer © 2019 Cengage. All rights reserved.  FBI Reports https://www.fbi.gov/stats-services/publications/serial-m urder https://www.fbi.gov/news/stories/serial-killers---part-1-th e-fbis-role-takes-shape https://www.fbi.gov/file-repository/serialmurder-pathway sforinvestigations.pdf/view © 2019 Cengage. All rights reserved.  STEPS INVOLVED IN CRIMINAL PROFILING 1. Profiling inputs. The first stage involves collecting all information available about the crime. 2. Decision process models. The profiler organizes the input. 3. Crime assessment. On the basis of the findings in step 2, the profiler attempts to reconstruct the behavior of the offender and the victim. 4. Criminal profile. The profiler formulates an initial description of the most likely suspects. 5. Investigation. A written report is given to investigators, who concentrate on suspects matching the profile. 6. Apprehension. Arrest of a suspect allows the profiler to evaluate the validity of their predictions. © 2019 Cengage. All rights reserved.  STEPS INVOLVED IN CRIMINAL PROFILING Criminal profilers are often guided by the following hypotheses: – Brutal facial injuries point to killers who knew their victims. – Murders committed with whatever weapon happens to be available are more impulsive than murders committed with a gun and may reveal a killer who lives fairly near the victim. – Murders committed early in the morning seldom involve alcohol or drugs. © 2019 Cengage. All rights reserved. THE VALIDITY OF CRIMINAL PROFILES Homant and Kennedy (1998) concluded that different kinds of crime scenes can be classified with reasonable reliability and that differences in these crimes do correlate with certain offender characteristics, such as murderers’ prior relationships and interactions with victims. A majority of the psychologists and psychiatrists responding to one survey (Torres et al., 2006) did not view criminal profiling as scientifically reliable or valid (but nonetheless endorsed it as a potentially useful tool in criminal investigation). © 2019 Cengage. All rights reserved.  BECOMING AN FBI PROFILER (1 of 2) The FBI is not the only law enforcement agency that uses profiling—it may be used in other agencies at the federal, state, and community levels. Consider the advice offered by Mary Ellen O’Toole, PhD, a retired FBI agent and criminal profiler: – Visit the website (www.fbi.gov) and review the current information on job requirements for becoming an FBI agent. – To become an agent, you would need, at minimum, a four-year college degree (any major). © 2019 Cengage. All rights reserved. BECOMING AN FBI PROFILER (2 of 2) – Following graduation from the Academy, you would be placed in a specific FBI field office, so you must be willing to relocate. – Field experience as an FBI agent is important before applying to the Behavioral Analysis Unit or other FBI unit that provide profiling services. – Work as an FBI profiler includes analysis, interviewing, writing, public speaking, and assessing individual and group behavior. © 2019 Cengage. All rights reserved.  BECOMING AN FBI PROFILER https://study.com/articles/Become_a_FBI_Profiler_Educatio n_and_Career_Roadmap.html © 2019 Cengage. All rights reserved.  DETECTING DECEPTION (1 of 4) How do psychologists learn about people’s ability to detect deception? – Researchers instruct some participants to lie and others to tell the truth. – These stories are videotaped and shown to observers who then judge the truthfulness of those statements. – https://www.brainfacts.org/archives/2013/the-truth-about- lies-the-science-of-deception © 2019 Cengage. All rights reserved. DETECTING DECEPTION © 2019 Cengage. All rights reserved. DETECTING DECEPTION (2 of 4) © 2019 Cengage. All rights reserved.  DETECTING DECEPTION (3 of 4) How accurately can people detect deception? – Bond and DePaulo (2006) determined that people are correct only 54% of the time, hardly better than chance. – People generally have a truth bias (biased toward judging statements as being truthful). – As a result, subjects in the meta-analysis correctly classified 61% of truthful statements as nondeceptive but only 47% of lies as deceptive. © 2019 Cengage. All rights reserved.  DETECTING DECEPTION (4 of 4) – These studies raise the question whether people can be trained to become better lie catchers. – Trained observers are only somewhat better than untrained observers. – Training may be useful to police and parole officers who tend to be biased toward judging statements as lies, even when they are true, a phenomenon known as lie bias or investigator bias. © 2019 Cengage. All rights reserved.  AROUSAL-BASED METHODS OF DETECTING DECEPTION (1 of 4) These tools, which analyze both verbal and nonverbal behavior, are based on the premise that liars will be more nervous than truth-tellers and exhibit more nervous behaviors. The polygraph (sometimes referred to as the lie detector) is a computer-based machine that measures blood pressure, electrodermal activity, and respiratory changes during questioning. © 2019 Cengage. All rights reserved.  AROUSAL-BASED METHODS OF DETECTING DECEPTION (2 of 4) In the Control Question Test (CQT), the polygrapher asks a series of questions and focuses on responses to two kinds of questions. – Relevant questions inquire about the crime under investigation. – Comparison questions are not directly concerned with the crime but are designed to induce an emotional reaction because they cover common misdeeds that nearly all of us have committed. © 2019 Cengage. All rights reserved.  AROUSAL-BASED METHODS OF DETECTING DECEPTION (3 of 4) The goal of Concealed Information Test (CIT) is to detect the presence of concealed information in the suspect’s mind, not to detect lying. Over the years, people have come to associate deception with lack of eye contact, fidgety movements, and certain grooming behaviors, among other behavioral cues. © 2019 Cengage. All rights reserved.  AROUSAL-BASED METHODS OF DETECTING DECEPTION (4 of 4) There are limitations of the Concealed Knowledge Test. – This technique can be used only when the details of the crime have been kept from the public. Even then, it is possible that the suspect is not the perpetrator but, rather, was told about the crime by the true criminal. – It is also possible that some guilty subjects pay so little attention to the details of their crimes that they actually lack the information on which this method relies. © 2019 Cengage. All rights reserved. COGNITIVE METHODS OF DETECTING DECEPTION (1 of 2) Researchers have developed interview protocols that elicit and increase cognitive load more in liars, who are already preoccupied, than in truth-tellers. These interventions cause liars to show more diagnostic cues to deception. By making a subject think harder in an interview, investigators have been able to more accurately discriminate liars from truthful interviewees. © 2019 Cengage. All rights reserved. COGNITIVE METHODS OF DETECTING DECEPTION (2 of 2) Another approach to detecting deception exploits the fact the liars prepare themselves for anticipated questions by rehearsing. – Rehearsal only works when liars correctly anticipate the questions they will be asked. When observers viewed responses to unanticipated questions, they correctly classified 80% of the truth-tellers and liars (could not distinguish truth-tellers from liars at above chance levels when viewing answers to anticipated questions). © 2019 Cengage. All rights reserved.  BRAIN-BASED LIE DETECTION (1 of 5) Neuroimaging in Deception Detection – Techniques such as functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI) use scanners to measure blood flow and oxygen utilization in selected parts of the brain.  Different patterns of brain activation have been shown to be associated with truth-telling and lying. © 2019 Cengage. All rights reserved. BRAIN-BASED LIE DETECTION (2 of 5)  Questions remain about the use of fMRI for detecting deception in people with medical or psychiatric disorders, youth, the elderly, and those who take medications or use countermeasures. The accuracy of this method ranges from 76% to 90%.  Despite these lingering concerns, fMRI techniques are being marketed commercially and occasionally used in court. © 2019 Cengage. All rights reserved.  BRAIN-BASED LIE DETECTION (3 of 5) Brain-Wave Analysis in Deception Detection – Brain fingerprinting uses an EEG to record the electrical activity on the surface of the scalp, reflecting spontaneous activity from the underlying cerebral cortex. – Brain fingerprinting evaluates neural activity to assess how a suspect responds to crime scene details known only to the perpetrator.  Estimates range from 85% to 95% accuracy in distinguishing liars from truth-tellers in lab; near chance levels in field. © 2019 Cengage. All rights reserved.  BRAIN-BASED LIE DETECTION (4 of 5) Brain-Based Lie Detection in Court – Defendants and witnesses may try to introduce the results of these tests to demonstrate their innocence or bolster their credibility. – Some have pondered whether these practices constitute a “search” of the brain that should be governed by the Fourth Amendment’s prohibition against unreasonable search and seizure. – Many commentators urge judges to resist the temptation to admit this evidence until more conclusive data are available. © 2019 Cengage. All rights reserved. BRAIN-BASED LIE DETECTION (5 of 5) © 2019 Cengage. All rights reserved.  EVALUATING CONFESSIONS When the police capture suspects, one of their first acts is to encourage them to confess. – A confession permits a district attorney or grand jury to bring charges. Even if the suspect later denies, the confession can be introduced as evidence at the trial. – Many false confessions have been documented (e.g., Center for Wrongful Convictions), although the number of false confessions is actually a matter of contention. © 2019 Cengage. All rights reserved.  HISTORICAL BACKGROUND AND CURRENT LEGAL STANDING (1 of 3) Until the mid-20th century, many “confessions” came only after intense questioning that involved promises, threats, harassment, and even brutality by the police. Until 1966, the traditional test for admissibility of a confession was voluntariness. A voluntary confession is given without overt inducements, threats, promises, or physical harm. But voluntariness proved difficult for many reasons. © 2019 Cengage. All rights reserved.  HISTORICAL BACKGROUND AND CURRENT LEGAL STANDING (2 of 3) In Miranda v. Arizona (1966), the Supreme Court held that a confession resulting from in-custody interrogation was admissible in court only if, in addition to being voluntary, it had been obtained after the police had ensured the suspect’s protection from self-incrimination by giving the Miranda warnings. The Supreme Court extended those rights to juveniles in 967. © 2019 Cengage. All rights reserved.  HISTORICAL BACKGROUND AND CURRENT LEGAL STANDING (3 of 3) Many suspects waive their Miranda rights, and after a suspect voluntarily enters the interrogation room, investigators can use any number of tactics to obtain a confession. Young and mentally impaired suspects waive their rights because they are vulnerable to the tactics of a skillful interrogator. © 2019 Cengage. All rights reserved. WHITTLING AWAY AT MIRANDA (1 of 2) Miranda survived a major challenge in 2000 when the Supreme Court reaffirmed that Miranda was a constitutional ruling and that the warnings are part of the national culture (Dickerson v. United States, 2000). This is an example of stare decisis—the court’s preference for maintaining stability in the law through “abiding by settled principle.” © 2019 Cengage. All rights reserved. WHITTLING AWAY AT MIRANDA (2 of 2) The U.S. Supreme Court has weakened the Miranda requirements: – Confessions that violate Miranda may still be used at a trial (Harris v. New York, 1971). – Miranda does not apply unless the suspect is in the custody of police (Berkemer v. McCarty, 1984). – Miranda doesn’t apply unless the defendant is being interrogated (Rhode Island v. Innis, 1980). © 2019 Cengage. All rights reserved.  THE VALIDITY OF CONFESSION EVIDENCE (1 of 4) Two kinds of erroneous outcomes are possible: false denials (when guilty suspects proclaim their innocence) and false confessions (when innocent suspects confess to alleged crimes). Although false denials occur more often than false confessions, the latter have captured the attention of psychological scientists, lawyers, judges, and the public. © 2019 Cengage. All rights reserved.  THE VALIDITY OF CONFESSION EVIDENCE (2 of 4) Why Do Innocent Suspects Falsely Confess? – In 2016, the Innocence Project reported that approximately 29% of cases in which DNA evidence led to exonerations involved false confession evidence. Interrogation-induced false confessions tend to occur in more serious cases. Scientists understand some the circumstances that give rise to false confessions. – https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/the-confession s/ © 2019 Cengage. All rights reserved.  THE VALIDITY OF CONFESSION EVIDENCE (3 of 4) Proving That a Confession Is False – There are four reasons one can be certain that a disputed confession is false:  A suspect could confess to a crime that never happened.  It was physically impossible for the suspect to commit the crime.  The actual perpetrator is identified and guilt is objectively established.  There is evidence (e.g., DNA) that definitely establishes the defendant’s innocence. © 2019 Cengage. All rights reserved.  THE VALIDITY OF CONFESSION EVIDENCE (4 of 4) Why would a person confess to a crime he or she did not commit? – To protect someone else – To escape the pressures of a harsh interrogation © 2019 Cengage. All rights reserved. INSIDE THE INTERROGATION ROOM: COMMON INTERROGATION TECHNIQUES (1 of 8) Pre-Interrogation—“Softening Up” the Suspect – When a suspect arrives at the police station for questioning, the police begin to subtly exert pressure on him or her to talk. – The interrogator may try to soften up the suspect by using flattery, ingratiation, and rapport-building—asking benign questions and engaging in pleasant small talk. © 2019 Cengage. All rights reserved. INSIDE THE INTERROGATION ROOM: COMMON INTERROGATION TECHNIQUES (2 of 8) © 2019 Cengage. All rights reserved. INSIDE THE INTERROGATION ROOM: COMMON INTERROGATION TECHNIQUES (3 of 8) The police are required to give the Miranda warnings prior to questioning, but there are ways to circumvent these warnings, such as trivializing the implications of a Miranda waiver for future outcomes for the suspect. By telling suspects that they are not under arrest and are free to go, there is no need to warn them that their statements may be used against them. © 2019 Cengage. All rights reserved. INSIDE THE INTERROGATION ROOM: COMMON INTERROGATION TECHNIQUES (4 of 8) The Interrogation Itself – The police use negative incentives (e.g., accusations, evidence fabrications, attacks on the subject’s denials) to break down a suspect’s defenses, lower his or her resistance, and instill feelings of fear, despair, and powerlessness. – The police also use positive inducements to motivate the suspect to see that an admission is in his or her best interest. © 2019 Cengage. All rights reserved. INSIDE THE INTERROGATION ROOM: COMMON INTERROGATION TECHNIQUES (5 of 8) – After the suspect has implicitly or explicitly agreed to talk, the interrogation becomes accusatorial.  Interrogators frequently challenge denials that suspects make.  Interrogators present fabricated evidence. Even if interrogators have no evidence of suspects’ wrongdoing, they can make them believe that they do. © 2019 Cengage. All rights reserved. INSIDE THE INTERROGATION ROOM: COMMON INTERROGATION TECHNIQUES (6 of 8) © 2019 Cengage. All rights reserved. INSIDE THE INTERROGATION ROOM: COMMON INTERROGATION TECHNIQUES (7 of 8) An Empirical Look at Interrogation Tactics – Innocent people waive their Miranda rights, how interrogators’ presumption of guilt affects the nature of the questioning. – The detective’s presumption of guilt can lead to behavioral confirmation. The detective will seek out information that verifies that belief, overlook conflicting data, and behave in a manner that conforms to the belief. In turn, the suspect behaves in ways that support that belief. © 2019 Cengage. All rights reserved. INSIDE THE INTERROGATION ROOM: COMMON INTERROGATION TECHNIQUES (8 of 8) Psychologists have also examined the effects of an implicit assumption of guilt on the behavior of interrogators and suspects, and on judgments of the interrogation by neutral observers. The presumption of guilt apparently ushers in a process of behavioral confirmation by which the expectations of interrogators affect their questioning style, suspects’ behavior. Finally, we consider the role of evidence ploys in eliciting confessions. As we mentioned, it is legal for interrogators to lie to suspects about the existence of evidence linking them to the crime. © 2019 Cengage. All rights reserved.  FALSE CONFESSIONS (1 of 2) Kassin and Wrightsman (1985) devised a taxonomy to describe three kinds of false confessions: – Voluntary false confession: Such a confession arises because people seek notoriety, desire to cleanse themselves of guilt feelings from previous wrongdoings, want to protect the real criminal, and have difficulty distinguishing fact from fiction. – Compliant false confession: In this type of confession, the suspect is induced to comply with the interrogator’s demands to make an incriminating statement. Such confessions occur when suspects know that they are innocent. © 2019 Cengage. All rights reserved.  California Innocence Project https://californiainnocenceproject.org/issues-we-face/fa lse-confessions/ © 2019 Cengage. All rights reserved. 3 Methods of Lie detection and The Dark Side of Interrogations https://vimeo.com/channels/deception https://clbb.mgh.harvard.edu/the-dark-side-of-interrogat ion/ © 2019 Cengage. All rights reserved.  FALSE CONFESSIONS (2 of 2) – Internalized false confession: Such a confession can be directly related to the highly suggestive and manipulative techniques that interrogators sometimes use during questioning. As a result of manipulative interrogation, suspects confess because they come to believe that they have committed the crime. © 2019 Cengage. All rights reserved. INSIDE THE COURTROOM: HOW CONFESSION EVIDENCE IS EVALUATED (1 of 3) Many prosecutors assume that only guilty suspects confess. So they tend to treat confessing suspects harshly, charging them with the highest number and types of offenses possible, requesting higher bail, and being reluctant to accept a plea bargain to a reduced charge. Some suspects confess because they actually come to believe that they have committed the crime. These so- called internalized false confessions can be directly related to the highly suggestive and manipulative techniques that interrogators sometimes use during questioning. © 2019 Cengage. All rights reserved. INSIDE THE COURTROOM: HOW CONFESSION EVIDENCE IS EVALUATED (2 of 3) Even defense attorneys assume that people who confess are guilty, and urge them to accept plea- bargains rather than risk their chances in a trial with confession evidence. In cases of disputed confessions, judges almost always decide that confessions are voluntary and thus, admissible as evidence in a trial. © 2019 Cengage. All rights reserved. INSIDE THE COURTROOM: HOW CONFESSION EVIDENCE IS EVALUATED (3 of 3) Jurors are very influenced by confessions. Juries are quiet likely to convict defendants who have confessed even when the confession is false (cases in which false confessors pled not guilty and proceeded to trial show that jury conviction rates ranged from 73% to 81%). Jurors fail to discount a confession elicited by high- pressure tactics of interrogators (fundamental attribution error—they do not see the external situation as a determinant of behavior). © 2019 Cengage. All rights reserved. REFORMING THE SYSTEM TO PREVENT FALSE CONFESSIONS (1 of 3) Recording all police interrogations can provide a complete, objective, and reviewable record of how the suspect was questioned. Recording can deter manipulative tactics by investigators and frivolous claims of coercion by defendants. Several states and the federal government require video-recording, and hundreds of other jurisdictions voluntarily record interrogations. © 2019 Cengage. All rights reserved. REFORMING THE SYSTEM TO PREVENT FALSE CONFESSIONS (2 of 3) Note that Lassiter and his colleagues (e.g., 2009) found that when the camera is focused on the suspect, observers are more likely to judge the confession as voluntary, compared with the same confession recorded from a different camera perspective. – This is an example of illusory causation, the tendency to attribute causation to one stimulus because it is more conspicuous than others. – When the recording shows both the suspect and the interrogator, observers are more attuned to situational pressures exerted by the interrogator. © 2019 Cengage. All rights reserved. REFORMING THE SYSTEM TO PREVENT FALSE CONFESSIONS (3 of 3) A more radical reform would reconceptualize the fundamental nature of police interrogations. Researchers have found that the nonconfrontational U.K.-type interviews produce fewer false confessions and more true confessions than accusatory interrogations. © 2019 Cengage. All rights reserved.